|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SuperFly
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: In the doghouse
|
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You know what I NEVER realized in the last ten years since I got out of school? That we shouldn't put TWO SPACES after periods, question marks, exclamation marks, and colons.. I just found out about this rule yesterday. DAMN was I embarrassed when a friend of mine pointed this out to me. Back in my day, before desktop publishing...adding an extra space after a period in every sentence was the rule. The rule has apparently changed.
http://www.fontsite.com/Pages/RulesOfType/ROT0997.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kimchi story
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
The reason I quoted guilty posters was to shame you into repentance!  |
The problem with being a vocal grammar nazi is that you are always going to be arguing about style. It's catty. Even if you are correct 100 times out of 100, you are still arguing about style. It was an interesting study. And posting the names was classless.
| Qinella wrote: |
Side note to Kimchi Story: thefreedictionary.com > dictionary.com |
dictionary.com = sarcasm. The irony here, and apparently it was too subtle, is that you really won't find the correct definition on dictionary.com. Well, you will find it - buried in a pile of 12 incorrect definitions. Personally, I'm a Merriam-Webster online kinda guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kimchi story wrote: |
| you are correct 100 times out of 100 |
Thanks player.
Anyway, I never actually looked up the word 'referencing' anywhere. I just saw the dictionary.com, um, referencing and thought I'd toss you a bone. The Free Dictionary > Merriam-Webster Online, as well.
btw, you are the one being catty, catty as you wanna be! It's about as cute as that avatar of yours! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robot
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
regarding my view on prescriptivist grammar, see my avatar.
ROBT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| My point is that English isn't the first language to have decided for itself that there's a proper way to speak and write it. Most likely the grunts and whistles of cavemen came with a set of gruntage rules. |
| Gramalkin wrote: |
| If it was up to the grammar nazis we would still be grunting at each other and even still they'd be complaining that some people's methods of grunting was getting a bit lax. Thay cannot accept that language naturally evolves but would rather see it petrified in time like an insect trapped in amber. |
I am not a grammar nazi. I am a proponent of the idea that grammar gives speakers of any language a blueprint that helps us to understand, at any given period of a language�s development, what the hell we�re saying to each other. I�m not in any way a die-hard prescriptivist. I�m about 75% prescriptivist, 25% descriptivist.
That is, I�m not a moron, I understand that languages evolve, but I believe that such evolution should be tempered, in a mature society, by generally accepted rules, rules that are open to long-term change, with an emphasis on long-term. Elsewise, it�s just chaos, and no one from one generation to the next knows what anyone else means.
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Again ... grammar is biologically determined. Insisting on prescriptive grammar rules is like insisting that 5'10'' is the standard height for adult human males and anyone who is not that height is breaking the rules and ought to get their act together! |
No, actually, it�s not like that at all. At some given point in time, 5�10� was the average height, and every thinking human on the planet understood the concept of �average,� and that at some future point, this average would be different, as it had been demonstrably different in the past.
As every thinking person on the planet understands the idea that there are currently accepted norms of vocal and of written expression in any given language, that these norms aren�t the same as they were 20, 50 or 300 years ago, and that they won�t be the same 20, 50 or 300 years in the future. It is still evident, however, that a mature civilization requires a currently valid idea of what constitutes some standard of its language.
| Quote: |
| The belief in prescriptive grammar rules is going to go the same way as the belief in a flat earth. |
The pessimist in me knows that you are right, that when civilization breaks down completely, grammar will cease to be of any importance at all.
Or is Civilization also an evil on the scale of the evil of Grammar?
Because on a very basic level, Civilization and Grammar are directly equatable, a fact that pure descriptivists don't seem quite able to grasp.
Another discipline, one outside of language or lingistics, would call this reluctance, "oppositional defiance." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MCSM
Joined: 20 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think no one has mentioned:
grammer: Search found 311 matches
yet.
Great threads always bring out the Dave's elite. Qudos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If someone doesn't know the difference between you're and your, they really should not have a position as an English teacher. Working at McDonalds or cleaning toilets, by contrast.......
Would you go to a doctor who didn't know the difference between Morphine and Aspirin?
See also people who think there's an 'a' in definitely - living proof that people can live without brains.
Intelligent - hell, not even intelligent, rather NORMAL - people have an instinctive grasp of the distinction between you're and your prior to the age of 11. Yet some folks get through high school, achieve a degree from an English-speaking university and STILL don't understand this pre-middle school item of English. Incredible. Shameful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like this thread alot. I read it everyday. Thank's, Queenella. Your the bomb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocklee
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know how many times I've seen "payed" instead of "paid". One poster even went as far as to justify his mistakes, which of course had no bearing on the outcome no matter how he tried 
OP, thanks for bringing this to my attention, but I too am guilty when I found this :
| Quote: |
| I use mind everyday with my computer. |
To be fair, I think I was drunk at the time
EDITED : spelling.
Last edited by rocklee on Sat May 12, 2007 10:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MCSM
Joined: 20 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rocklee wrote: |
One poster even went as far as to justified his mistakes,
To be fair, I think I was drunk at the time |
How 'bout now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocklee
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah I'm not drunk but been under the weather lately with fever. Thanks for picking that out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kyrei
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zyzyfer wrote: |
| I like this thread alot. I read it everyday. Thank's, Queenella. Your the bomb. |
Ohh... you mischevious troll you... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
The belief in the need for prescriptive grammar rules is based on a number of common misconception like this one below
| daskalos wrote: |
I am not a grammar nazi. I am a proponent of the idea that grammar gives speakers of any language a blueprint that helps us to understand, at any given period of a language�s development, what the hell we�re saying to each other. I�m not in any way a die-hard prescriptivist. I�m about 75% prescriptivist, 25% descriptivist.
That is, I�m not a moron, I understand that languages evolve, but I believe that such evolution should be tempered, in a mature society, by generally accepted rules, rules that are open to long-term change, with an emphasis on long-term. Elsewise, it�s just chaos, and no one from one generation to the next knows what anyone else means. |
A little bit of critical thinking will show this to be untrue. Since the prescriptive grammar rules for English were only devised a couple of centuries ago does that mean that before that 'chaos' reigned, and English speakers from different generations could not understand each other? Parents could not understand each other or vice versa? Or perhaps only Londoners on whose dialect the prescriptive rules were based were the only ones spared this babel-like confusion?
| Quote: |
| As every thinking person on the planet understands the idea that there are currently accepted norms of vocal and of written expression in any given language, that these norms aren�t the same as they were 20, 50 or 300 years ago, and that they won�t be the same 20, 50 or 300 years in the future. It is still evident, however, that a mature civilization requires a currently valid idea of what constitutes some standard of its language. |
Another common misconception...that modern civilised communities use more sophisticated grammar than primitive peoples. Yet this has been shown to be untrue. Since grammar is biologically determined and not a function of education or culture even the most primitive tribes existing today use language as sophisticated as that used by the most advanced of nations!
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The belief in prescriptive grammar rules is going to go the same way as the belief in a flat earth. |
The pessimist in me knows that you are right, that when civilization breaks down completely, grammar will cease to be of any importance at all.
Or is Civilization also an evil on the scale of the evil of Grammar?
Because on a very basic level, Civilization and Grammar are directly equatable, a fact that pure descriptivists don't seem quite able to grasp.
Another discipline, one outside of language or lingistics, would call this reluctance, "oppositional defiance." |
You're still missing the point. Grammar is innate. It will cease to be of any importance at all only when our DNA does.
All your arguments are based on the fact that you do not understand that grammar is innate. This is precisely why we do not need prescriptive grammar rules, our grammar is biologically built-in. A prescriptive grammar can only hinder, like binding Chinese women's feet to make them more elegant (a mark of civilisation no doubt!) and effectively crippling them.
Can you give one valid reason for why 'every day' has to be two words as an adverb and one word as an adjective? Tradition...clarity... the need for standardisation (the existence of the two spellings color/colour is leading to major confusion and may well be the reason for increased rates of senility in modern society?)......any reason?
Better still, go read 'The Language Instinct' then come back and tell me you haven't changed your mind (if you do I'll be expecting to hear you read Darwin and still believe in a six thousand year old Earth). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grimalkin, what's the basis for your confident claims of grammar being innate and biologically determined? It makes no sense to me at all, so I'd like to look into it.
Also, I'm thinking about starting another thread, titling it "Grammar", and then just posting any random thing so that Deskalos will have another soapbox to stand on.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
Grimalkin, what's the basis for your confident claims of grammar being innate and biologically determined? It makes no sense to me at all, so I'd like to look into it.
Also, I'm thinking about starting another thread, titling it "Grammar", and then just posting any random thing so that Deskalos will have another soapbox to stand on. |
'The Language Instinct' by Stephen Pinker.
(Imagine Naom Chomsky as Darwin then, Stephen Pinker is Richard Dawkins and 'The Language Instinct' is 'The Selfish Gene'!).
It contains a ton of research ranging from anthropologists' studies of primitive societies to neurolinguists' research.
I guarantee if it makes no sense to you now that grammar is innate, once you've read the book it will seem so obvious you'll wonder why you didn't see it yourself.
It clearly shows how the idea that children learn grammar from parents or teachers is false (and also explains why children can speak a language fluently within a few short years but adults,whose intelligence is more developed, can spend longer studying a language and never attain the same proficiency).
Plus, it's a fun read! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
